Introduction
Racial discrimination is widely discussed as society progresses from segregative tendencies of the previous century to diversity and equality valued today. Consequently, the events where the regulations negatively affect minority groups’ representatives receive much attention. The article “School Dress and Grooming Codes Are the New ‘White Only’ Signs,” written by Andre M. Perry in 2020, argues that racism still exists in communities nationwide. The term ‘white only’ was used in the 20th century on signposts, waiting rooms, and even bathrooms that were to be exclusively accessed by white people. The practice was developed to segregate black inhabitants and decrease their rights to citizenship. As modern society makes conscious attempts to combat racism of any type, the signs have been abolished, and direct discrimination has been prohibited. Perry claims that the ‘white only’ tendencies still exist and are masked by rules and regulations such as dress and grooming codes used to control and oppress black people in schools and organizations. This paper aims to summarize the article and discuss if racial discrimination remains a serious challenge for modern society.
Summary
In the article “School Dress and Grooming Codes are The New ‘White Only’ Signs,” Andre M. Perry provides a concrete example of administrative regulations that do not equally respect people of all racial groups. In the Barbers Hill Independent School, rules to have a specific hairstyle for boys affected DeAndre Arnold, who was suspended because of his locks (Perry). The case caught attention because the school belongs to the prevalently white community, and the dress and grooming codes were developed based on options convenient to the majority rather than including styles suitable for diverse individuals. Perry recalls that this injustice goes back to 1857, when the Supreme Court ruled that black people were not citizens. In a discrimination case in 2017, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that hairstyles are culturally associated with race; they are not immutable physical characteristics; thus, people could change their hair or clothing to fit the rules and regulations. Perry’s main idea is that forcing minority groups’ representatives to modify their appearance in a manner inconvenient to them only to comply with the majority’s established norms is racism.
Perry states the idea that ‘White Only’ practices remain present in the communities where white race representatives are prevalent, and discrimination thrives due to negative biases and stereotypes about the minority groups. The author analyzes the incident with DeAndre because the student’s right to education was violated based on their hairstyle, and such reasoning is obnoxious to modern society. The author mentions similar incidents that occurred nationwide: at Tenaya Middle school, where a 14-year-old male was prevented from taking lunch because his natural hair had been shaved in designs. In Durham, California, a School for Creative studies prevented black students from wearing traditional head wraps and gels as they symbolized their connection to Africa (Perry). The sports sector is also taking part in this form of racism wrestler Andrew Johnson was asked by the referee to cut his dreadlocks or risk not participating in the match. These incidents highlight how often black people have been discriminated against based specifically on their appearance and hairstyle.
Response
I agree with Perry’s ideas and point that incidents of segregation, discrimination, and racism still occur and should be widely discussed to eliminate such practices. Although dressing and grooming codes are appropriate for schools, the regulations must ensure uniformity and balance in how the members of that organization dress and present themselves (Perry). The boards that establish such restrictions have to question what standards should be used when developing them, and diversity has to be respected. I had grooming and dress codes at my school, and I had not thought if the rules had addressed the minority groups’ representatives’ needs and differences. However, having the uniform and similar hairstyles helped us perceive each other as equal regardless of race or socioeconomic status. Consequently, I believe that Perry’s article emphasizes the need for creating regulations based on diversity as a crucial value, rather than abolishing them.
The article should make a reader question what exactly is wrong with grooming regulations for African American representatives. Indeed, black hair is biologically different, more susceptible to breakage and dryness than other racial groups’ hair. Due to this, hairstyles such as twists, cornrows, and dreadlocks are inventions that were necessitated by the need to protect black hair. The author uses convincing statistics about the percentage of different racial groups’ representatives, displaying that they lack knowledge of such physiological distinctions (Perry). These conditions must be perceived as caring for one’s health and considered by the regulators establishing school dress and hair codes.
Perry’s ideas are built on the examples of extreme disrespect, such as student suspension; however, these occasions took place in communities where white people represent most of the population. The resulting segregation is based on biases and may be eliminated by diversifying the executive boards of companies and institutions. The author uses strong formulations and words such as ‘racism’ to describe the cases to make the reader understand that it is morally unacceptable for institutions to enact policies that oppress some students and defend others. The rhetoric strategy is selected to draw the audience’s attention and highlight the problem’s severity for modern society; yet, today’s conditions are a lot more respectful than during the ‘White Only’ sings’ active use. Perry’s article has no examples of positive changes in institutions where diversity thrives and communities where racial minorities live comfortably (Perry). The author uses one-sided argumentation to make the issue seem urgent; however, it is crucial to remember that society continues to evolve, and there are practices to respect the equality of rights.
Conclusion
The article about schools’ grooming and dress codes perceived as ‘White Only’ signs draws attention to the problem of still existing disrespect to racial minorities’ representatives. The author states the idea that people of color have a right to use distinct hairstyles convenient to them and forcing them to comply with the rules to receive such basics as education is inappropriate. The reasons for such occasions as suspending students based on their grooming are that the executive boards’ members are mostly white and that diversity is not treated as a crucial value. Although the article describes the issue as inappropriate for the modern society and presents only the negative side of the current situation with racial minorities, it is essential to remember that positive events and rights enforcement exists. Indeed, equality is praised in various institutions, and new practices keep occurring to make people feel comfortable in their communities and contribute to the further development of diversity-based regulations.
Work Cited
Perry, Andre M. “School Dress and Grooming Codes are the New ‘Whites Only’ Signs.” The Brookings Institution, 2020.